On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
> Isn't this why we vote. To come to a decision when consensus can't be
> reached and allow people to move on.
When diversity concerns were raised in the ManifoldCF podling by Jukka,
graduation was delayed to address them.
When diversity concerns were raised in the Lucy podling by Torsten Curdt,
graduation was delayed to address them.
When diversity concerns were raised with regards to Flume, a VOTE was called.
Contentious VOTEs force people to take sides and create winners and losers
where none existed before. It is often worth going the extra mile to avoid
imposing a "tyranny of the majority" and fostering alienation.
In my opinion, there would be a benefit to the Flume community for staying in
the Incubator a while longer and wrestling with how to increase diversity.
Have you folks ever had a non-Cloudera Release Manager? Was there ever a
possibility of a non-Cloudera Flume VP? How about waiting until someone other
than a Cloudera person emerges who is willing to lead a graduation push? I
think the community would develop healthy habits by prioritizing such concerns
for a little while.
On the other hand, there are benefits to graduation in terms of enlarging the
pool of potential contributors by those who are willing to get involved with
graduated projects but not podlings. Ralph has shown an open mind and has
been weighing the plusses and minuses. We all want what is best for Flume.
It wasn't necessary to call a VOTE and override a Mentor. There were other
ways to resolve the issue. Flume chose the contentious route, and that
bothers me. I don't think it bodes well.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org